The Instigator
Subutai
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
ChosenWolff
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Big Bang Theory Is Probably True

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Subutai
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/17/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,953 times Debate No: 58572
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (222)
Votes (4)

 

Subutai

Pro

Unfortunately, neither of the people who wanted to accept this debate have responded back to me. However, after an interesting discussion in one of the poll's comments section, ChosenWolff has kindly asked to take up the challenge.

Full Resolution

The Big Bang Theory is probably valid.

BoP is on pro.

Definitions

The Big Bang Theory: "The prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe. The key idea is that the universe is expanding. Consequently, the universe was denser and hotter in the past. Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests [note "suggests", not argues for] that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe."[1]

Probably: "Most likely; presumably."[2]

Valid: "Having some foundation; based on truth."[3]

Rules

1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.

Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)

Sources

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
ChosenWolff

Con

I accept. I am very knowledgable on this subject, have studied it immensely, and over time, have pointed millions of fallacies in the argument. I am glad to be debating the legendary subutai, and will make it clear to the audience, that votes should not be based on belief or the reputation of the debater. Henceforth, we will begin with some definitions, since my opponent never made them. They can be contested later, pending he can prove his are more valid.

Definitions

Expansion: an expanded, dilated, or enlarged portion or form of at hing:
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Matter: the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed:the matter of which the earth is made.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Incorporeal:Lacking material form or substance
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
General Relativity:A theory, formulated by Albert Einstein, that all motion must be defined relative to a frame of reference and that all space and time are relative, rather than absolute concepts.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Space: the unlimited or incalculably great three dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects arelocated and all events occur.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Universe: all of space and everything in it including stars, planets, galaxies, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Observational Evidence Clarification

Do to the nature of the debate, observational evidence should have a signifigantly low impact on this debate, as Pro would be violating "correlation without causation". Hence, only evidence that can be directly connected to subutais reasolution that "matter contained in space led to the eventual creation and expansion of the universe". We are debating that resolution. Not that evidence supports his resolution.

Think of it as the equivalent of a creationist saying "Gods real because because mircacle X happened to christian Y". Arguments like these will be seen as a fallacy for the duration of the debate, and if they are made, they should be immediately ignored and unrefuted. Arguments that typically are disputed as "correlation without causation" include...

1. Comsic Microwave observations
2. Near-Far Hubble Telescope projections (V=HoD,)
3. Formation of spacial resources in the universe
4. Radiometric Data

If you're wondering why these arguments can't be used, it's because all of these have been connected to a 100 other theories on the existence of the universe. If the opposition wishes to correlate two of these things, he has the full responcibility of proving that they connect to the base BBT theory. If his data connects with even one more known theory, the argument should be stricken from the debate and negated.

Base Requirements for all debates

- Pro will be held to the BOP (burden of proof). It is not flexible, therefore, is 100% his responcibility.
- Any argument made will be affirmed until countered.
- Sources are meant to support your claims and inform readers. They are not an argument by themselves.
- Pro will be required to prove that "matter (universal substance) is expanded within a space container" is probably true.
- The word "probably" has not been completely defined. A typical stance is that there is over a 80% chance that something is true, although propabillity is variable. You can use my standard or create your own.

Voting Expectations

- Long, tedious votes will be encouraged for this debate.
- Voting should not be based on semantics or religious beliefs.
- Voters who take a vocal stance in the comments should not vote unless they're certain their stance is non partisian.

Final Clarification

This debate has nothing to do with religion, philosophy, ect. My stance will not be based around creationism or any other variation of the thing. I intend to solely debate that the institution of a BBT theory as a truth is scientifically unfeasible. Naturally, the voters should be inclined to vote for me until my opponent can prove the BBT theory to be 100% "probably true". I hope the opposition doesn't mind me clarifying a few things. None of this stuff was debate specific, and account for all debates.
Debate Round No. 1
Subutai

Pro

I would like to thank ChosenWolff for accepting this debate.

I. The Homogeneity of the Universe

The Big Bang Theory (BBT) rests on only two assumptions. One is that the laws of the universe are the same throughout space and time. This is an implication of the theory of special relativity. The other is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. This has been observed.

"A major prediction of the Big Bang is that the universe is homogeneous. At small scales, just as in the solar system, this is obviously not true, but if we look at the largest scales of the universe, this is true. As an example, consider the plot below showing galaxies from the Las Campanas Redshift Survey. Each dot represents a galaxy (about 20,000 in the total survey) where they have measured both the position on the sky and the redshift and translated that into a location in the universe"[1]:



An even stronger case for the homogeneity of the universe can be made in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), in that it is virtually homogeneous and isotropic being isotropic (the same) to roughly one part in 100,000, further. This spectrum has been redshifted by the expansion of the universe, and today corresponds to approximately 2.725 K. [2]:



Now, universal homogeneity and isotropy and not indicators of the big bang, but the observation of it validates one of the theories assumptions. Further, the CMBR can only be explained through the BBT. "In the absence of BBT, there would be no reason to expect a uniform, long-wavelength background radiation in the universe."[1]

In addition to the overall isotropy of the CMBR, there are the small anisotropies in it as well. "The recent discovery of the previously predicted acoustic peaks in the power spectrum has established a working cosmological model: a critical density universe consisting of mainly dark matter and dark energy, which formed its structure through gravitational instability from quantum fluctuations during an inflationary epoch."[6]

"The angular power spectrum of the anisotropy of the CMB contains information about the formation of the Universe and its current contents... The graph above [shown below] shows the angular power spectrum measured by WMAP and several balloon-borne and ground-based experiments. These data are perfectly consistent with a flat Universe that is dominated by a vacuum energy density of cosmological constant which provides 73 percent of the total density of the Universe. Another 23 percent of the density is dark matter. Only 4 percent of the density is ordinary matter made of protons and neutrons."



Notice the almost perfect prediction of the Lambda-CDM model on the angular power spectrum. It is clear that the BBT matches up with predictions very well. "With 5 years of WMAP data, and improved ground-based and balloon-borne experiments, the consistency with Lambda-CDM [sic] remains excellent."[11]

The BBT is remarkably close to observations,

II. Galatic Evolution

The BBT predicts that earlier formed galaxies will look different than recently formed galaxies. "As one would expect, the morphology of the few nearby galaxies in these images [of various sections of the universe] is quite a bit different from the very high redshift galaxies."Galaxies that formed relatively recently appear very different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. "Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the Universe." No other theory can explain why more redshifted galaxies look different than less redshifted galaxies. In addition, no other theory can explain why galaxies evolve, and, as follows, the way they do evolve.[1][3][4]

III. Abundance of Elements

There is an abundance of light elements that can only be explained by the BBT. "The fact that helium is nowhere seen to have an abundance below 23% mass is very strong evidence that the Universe went through an early hot phase. This is one of the cornerstones of the Hot Big Bang Model." Further, the abundance of light elements over heavy elements is a further confirmation. "...as one examines older and older objects, the abundance of most heavy elements becomes smaller and smaller, asymptoting to zero. By contrast, the abundance of helium goes to a non-zero limiting value."[1][5]

Here is a graph showing the abundance of elements in the universe. Notice how the abundancies fall asymptotically to zero, as predicted by the BBT:



In addition to the abundance of light elements themselves, there is the variation in different light element ratios. For example, consider the ratio of helium to deuterium (a hydrogen atom with two protons. "Because deuterium has a nucleus that is very weakly bound compared with most nuclei, it is very sensitive to the conditions in which it is formed (as we have just seen): if the temperatures are too high, deuterium breaks apart, and it can only be formed when there are free neutrons to combine with protons. Detailed analysis of the deuterium abundance gives very strong support to the hot big bang picture.""Indeed there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young universe should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too."[2][10]

Fianlly, there are the primordial gas clouds. These are clouds of gaseous elements no larger than hydrogen and deuterium, formed in the first few minutes after the big bang. The composition of these gas clouds matches the composition predicted from Big Bang nucleosynthesis. "The composition of the gas matches theoretical predictions, providing direct evidence in support of the modern cosmological explanation for the origins of elements in the universe."[12]

IV. Hubble's Law

Hubble's Law states that v = H0*D where:

v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy or other distant object,
D is the comoving distance to the object,
H0 is Hubble's Constant, measured to be 70.4 (errors +1.3, -1.4) km/s/Mpc

The only plausible explanation for this is the expansion of the universe, which we are currently experiencing. It is one of the cornerstones of the Big Bang Theory, and very much helps prove it. Again, while not a proof of the BBT, it's finding underlies the entire basis of the BBT itself.[2][7]

Further, the expansion of the universe has been found to be accelerating, which indicates the existence of dark matter, or a negative pressure that counteracts the force of gravity throughout the universe. This is a part of the Lambda-CDM model of the BBT, and there is no other cosmological theory that can plausibly and reliably explain why this is occurring.[8]

V. Stellar Age

If the BBT were to be true, there should be no stars older than approximately 13.5 billion years. The oldest stars known fit nicely into this model: "The globular cluster NGC 6397, Panquini found an age of 13.4 billion years, plus or minus 800 million years. Other studies like Krauss and Hansen obtained similar results with related methods: 12.2 and 12.1 billion years, respectively, with errors on order 1 to 2 billion years."[1][9]

In addition, we should see differentiations in different stellar generations. Stars create the denser materials. If so, newer stars should have more metallicity the younger they are. This is indeed observed. Generally, the youngest stars, the extreme Population I, are found farther in and intermediate Population I stars are farther out, etc, as shown here:



This organization is observed in galaxies throughout the universe, and is another important proof of the BBT.

Conclusion

"[The] big bang picture is too firmly grounded in data from every area to be proved invalid in its general features." - Lawrence Krauss

Sources

[1]: http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]: http://arxiv.org...
[4]: http://www.atnf.csiro.au...
[5]: http://astro.berkeley.edu...
[6]: http://background.uchicago.edu...
[7]: http://www.pnas.org...
[8]: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...
[9]: http://arxiv.org...
[10]: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...
[11]: http://www.astro.ucla.edu...
[12]: http://www.sciencedaily.com...
ChosenWolff

Con

I. What is the BBT
The big bang theory (BBT), is the idea that matter was once contained in a single point known as the "positive space container" (PSC). The gas within the PSC was ionized into Plasma. Following fission and overheating commited by plasmatoic reactions, the PSC exploded, in a event known as the big bang. The idea is that the original plasma is starting to cool down. By it cooling down, we are seeing the beginning of space itself starting to end. The model looks like this.



II. Protonic Errors
This is the main fallacy in the BBT theory. For all matter to be contained is the PSC, we have to be of the assumption that something exists beyond it. A fact that constantly shoots down the theory that a big bang is expanding the universe. For the original Quantum Fluctuation to have taken placed, there must of been something outside the PSC for it to expand into. People call this source, anti-matter. Scientists make the baseless claim, that when anti-matter and matter collide, they form a containment chamber. Once again, this is just another theory stacked on to the already fallacious BBT. When we put anti protons, or the substance of anti matter, and collide it with positive protons, consisting of positive matter, we create energy.




When the Nuetron and Positron (The anti matter equalivalent of proton) meet, they create energy. This interaction is known as a Antiproton ring. This energy is extremely low scale in power, but is believed by BBT theorists, as they don't actually all agree on how the bang happened, to be the cause. When the Ionized gas hit touchdown with the positron, we create fission. Or heat. This is where the BBT starts sounding more like a science fiction tale rather than a legit theory. The matter condensed within the PSC pushes back anti matter, to expand the context of the universe. This is a fallacy, for another contention I'll get to later. The main error, and one I'm sure he can't explain, as even Stephen Hawkings couldn't, is how the fissions hit en masse, all at the same time, to make an initial boom. If Stephen Hawkings can't answer such a huge gap in logic, then Subutai can't prove the BBT happened.

C1: Unanswered Questions regarding the BBT

- How did trillions of reactive fusions occur at the same time during the big bang? (Hint: Nobody Knows)
- In a full contention, how does anti-matter contain positive matter? (Hint: Nobody knows)
- As in depth as possible, why was the positive matter contained in the PSC in the first place? (Hint: Nobody Knows)
- How did multiple forms of matter react all within the same condensed space? (Hint: Nobody Knows)
- Explain in depth, why did all sides of the PSC explode at once, and not just one edge? (Hint: The premise itself is fallacious)
- Please give ample reasoning, why was anti matter only outside the PSC? (Hint: Nobody Knows)

Expanding on question 5, this is no doubt a ridiculous fallacy within the BBT. It defies all form of basic understanding on how things work. The idea relies on all heat combusting everywhere, but anyone who has taken physics knows this defies the laws of gravity. Heat builds up upon the sides of a object. If you ever sip hot soup, the edges are always the hottest part to eat, not the center. Observe.


As you can see, the red and greenish colors are centered around the edge, whereas the more moderate light yellow heat signature is condensed in the center of the human body. If it seems like I'm getting off track, I'm not, because this correlates to a very important point. That if the big bang were to have happened, all matter would of expanded in one direction. If that were true, then we could litterally just fly to the starting epicenter of earth (if we had a spaceship with unlimited gas). I will equate it to this gif of an immolated man.



Look at the way the heat touches his body. Heat doesn't burn from the center, but is reacting to his skin, where fluids flow out. This is the correct physical role the BBT would take if it were true. The BBT is of the assumption that the hottest elements of ionized gas combust from the center, when in reality, heat is busting from the edge. If anything, physics show that the world would condense if the BBT were true, and given we have observations of an expanding universe, the BBT just got even more fallacious.

Not to mention, that if the BBT were true, then there would be a center of the universe where "nothing" exists. Not anti matter or matter, meaning not only has the theory defied the laws of physics, but the laws of reason and philosophy.

C2: Unanswered questions regarding the BBT

- How does the BBT defy the laws of physics and still work? (Hint: It doesn't)
- Is it feasibly possible for all matter to have linked from different directions? (Hint: It isn't)
- What is your answer to the fact that there would be gaps of nothingness in the universe? (Hint: You can't)

III. Negative Space Error

For the BBT to be true, we would need to be of the assumption that a second layer exists beyond the PSC. As for the universe to be contained, there must be a universe outside containing it. This is known as the NSE, or negative space error. Nothing can exist at one point, as space is finite in the BBT. Which is a fallacy, as it is impossible for "nothing" to exist. "Nothing" is always something. Which is why I drew a model regarding the NSE.

Created this image for the BBT debate

This hasn't been answered by any scientist. It can't be answered, as it isn't feasibly explainable. It is litterally, the epthany of all human reasoning and understanding up to this point, therefore, it cannot be true. If it were, then you can count me a mad man,as I cannot attempt to grasp this Hubbert fan fiction to the slightest.

C3: Unanswered questions regarding the BBT

- How can something exist outside the context of the universe? (Hint: It isn't possible)
- What is containing anti-matter? (Hint: Nobody knows)
- How does the first bang push back the borders of the universe that existed before it? (Hint: It can't)

IV. Contextual Reality

Someone in the comments brought up an intresting point, and I hope he isn't opposed to me quoting it.

"Expansion leads to logical inconsistency analytically. To wit, if there were something outside reality that were sufficiently real to contain the "expansion" of reality, it would be contained in reality. That's a contradiction; ergo, the hypothesis is false.

The cosmos can"t be expanding in any absolute sense, because there"s nothing for it to be expanding into. Therefore, we must invert the model in a way that "conserves spacetime"; the total "amount" of spacetime must remain constant. When we do so, the cosmos ceases to resemble a balloon inflating (extending outward) over time, and instead becomes an inward superposition of sequentially related states. The best way to think of it is in terms of a cumulative embedment of Venn diagrams (of state) on the inside surface of a sphere of extrinsically indeterminate size.

"Intrinsic expansion" is a contradiction in terms. If something is expanding, then it has to be expanding *with respect to* a fixed referent, and if it is, then it has to be extending into an external medium with respect to which the fixity of the referent has been established. On the other hand, saying that something is shrinking relative to that which contains it presents no such problem, for in that case, nothing is really "expanding". An inclusive relationship, like that whereby the universe includes its contents, can change intrinsically only if its total extent does not change; where its total extent is just that of the inclusive entity, this means that the extent of the *inclusive entity* cannot change. Ergo, no expansion; it's logically analytic. Reason in any other fashion, and the term "expansion" becomes meaningless." - Dylancatlow

http://www.debate.org...


If you didn't understand what he said, then this debate is over, because I couldn't of put it better than that. The BBT relies on the fallacious reasoning that the universe is without a fixed point. That one can actually expand beyond reality. First rule of philosophy, nothing is outside the bounds of reality. Not even an omnipotent god can escape reality, pending one existed. The BBT is breaking philosophical context itself, but its fallacious reasoning.

V. Conclusion

I have to wrap this up now, but I think I summed up more than one fallacy in the BBT. The BBT, even admitted by Einstein, is just a theory that explains the observations the opposition listed. I don't plan on arguing the hubble observations or radiometric data, which I told my opponent not to use. Mainly for the reason that these things connect to 1000's of arguments, and not solely the BBT. I can connect all of them to numerous theories. Is the universe expanding? Most certainly. Is it do to some law breaking explosion that happened light stars away, most certainly not.

VI. Video 1

There were 5 more arguments I wanted to make, but I'm out of characters, but I did have room to fit a HTML to a video. I encourage you to watch it. It makes a mind blowning contention on how cosmological allignments don't fit, and many of the impossible plamotic reaction contentions. He explains that all the underlying theories are just a million ideas trying to make a impossible theory make sense.


http://www.quora.com...
http://www.nasa.gov...
http://www.icr.org...
http://www.plasmas.org...
http://www.britannica.com...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com...

Rapping up, the big bang is nothing more than 1,000,000 tacked on theories explaining one idea that doesn't even seem plausible.
Debate Round No. 2
Subutai

Pro

I would like to thank ChosenWolff for presenting his arguments. I am going to have an unusual argument structure in this round, considering the scientific and philosophical inaccuracies con makes, answering any of con's remaining relevant questions, and finally, drawing it all together.

Scientific Errors

There are a large number of scientific errors in con's argument. The biggest one (and the most relevant to his whole argument) is his description of the BBT. The universe did not begin as a single point in space. "No, Hubble's law only says that matter was more dense everywhere at an earlier time, and that it thins out over time because everything flows away from each other." This does not necessitate the need for a single point from which the universe expanded.[1][2]

Another is that the, according to the BBT, the universe expanded into already existing space. However, space itself was created with the big bang. "The Big Bang - as far as we understand it - was not an explosion like that at all. It was an explosion of space, not an explosion in space. According to the standard models there was no space and time before the Big Bang." So how does space expand if not from a singular point? "The big bang is the expansion or stretching of space. It is not that things are flying out from a point. Rather, all things are moving away from each other. It is like having an infinite rubber sheet with people sitting on it. Stretch the rubber sheet, and all the people move away from one another. Each thinks they are at the center of an explosion. It is an optical illusion - everybody moves away from everybody else and there is no center."[3][7]

Here is a picture showing the misconception at the top and the valid way to look at the universe's expansion at the bottom:



The final inaccuracy my opponent commits about the BBT itself it the description of the early universe. The universe did not begin as gases in a "positive space container" (PSC), as the first moments after the big bang were too hot for matter to even exist. The big bang had nothing to do with nuclear fission reactions or plasmatoic reactions (the latter of which doesn't even exist). Again, there was no explosion " there was simply an expansion of space.

These three problems pretty much nullify my opponent's arguments before the general assumptions are done with. There was no PSC filled with matter that exploded at some moment in time and became the observable universe. This creates a number of problems for my opponent, as his very assumptions have been refuted.

The other scientific arguments my opponent makes are the first two points. The first one is false for a number of reasons. Matter/antimatter reactions produce the most energy of any reaction pound for pound, as all of the matter becomes energy, instead of just some of it, such as in nuclear reactions. Quantum fluctuations usually last for much less than a second, and annihilate each other that quickly as well, and it is entirely plausible that all of those reactions happened at the same time. And they generally involve electron/positron (the antimatter equivalent of an electron, not proton) pairs. Further, the virtual particles would not be in separate areas (i.e. two distinct areas). Here is a picture showing how quantum fluctuations actually worked. The particles annihilated each other, creating energy. Here is a Feynman diagram of the situation. Note that a reverse reaction can occur as well.



The matter-to-radiation density is increasing, as the radiation turns into matter more frequently than the reverse reaction:



The second argument rests on yet another fallacy concerning the BBT. There was no center of expansion. "There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere." The universe has not only been expanding in one direction - the universe has been expanding uniformly everywhere since the big bang. If we accept my opponent's argument, this argument actually backfires. Overall, because the every powering the expansion is internal, it pushes space to expand.[3]

Now back to the supposed PSC problem. This assumes that there are two levels of space " the PSC itself, and the space that exists beyond it. However, again, there is no space beyond the boundaries of the universe. "If the Big Bang were an ordinary explosion in an already existing space, we would be able to look out and see the expanding edge of the explosion with empty space beyond. Instead, we see back towards the Big Bang itself and detect a faint background glow from the hot primordial gases of the early universe. This "cosmic microwave background radiation" is uniform in all directions. This tells us that it is not matter that is expanding outwards from a point, but rather it is space itself that expands evenly." We don't see any other space beyond the observable universe, negating the idea of a two-tiered structure of space.[3]

Philosophical Errors

My opponent has claimed that my rejection of the PSC is against philosophy in his fourth argument. Now I've always explained two seperate times why the PSC is invalid, but I will take a more philosophical approach this time.There are only two choices " one, that space is finite, and there would no space beyond the universe (what would constrain the outside space?) and two, that space is infinite. If we assume the former, there is no problem. If we assume the latter, time must be infinite as well. "In fact, if the whole universe is infinitely large now, then it was always infinite, including during the Big Bang as well." In this case, there could be no PSC, as there could be no such thing as an infinite container.[4]

The next philosophial (and part scientific) error my opponent makes is concluding that the laws that governed the universe were present during the big bang. Unfortunately, physics breaks down at the earliest of times due to the extremely convoluted nature of the Planck era universe. "Neither should one think that the universe expanded from some initial "point" into space. Since the Big Bang initiates the very laws of physics, one cannot expect any physical explanation of this singularity; physical laws used to explain the expansion of the universe no longer hold at any time before t>0."[5]

The only thing left is to consider whether space is expanding or matter is shrinking. Unless my opponent can provide a mechanism showing how the latter could occur and evidence that it exists, we should assume the former, as matter does not shrink. The former is confirmed by redshift. The increasing redshifting of matter in the only be explained by the distance between the point of light emission to light receiving gets longer, which can only can happen if space is expanding. Space is expanding intrinsically now because of dark energy.

Questions

I will now address a few of the questions my opponent asks (at least the ones I have not already addressed).

For C1, I've answered the first four questions already. Question five is not a valid objection. Much like a nuclear bomb does not produce a straight line of destruction, the big bang did not produce a straight line of expansion, but rather expanded everywhere due to the energy that quantum fluctuations gave off in all directions. Question 6 is nonsensical. Even assuming the PSC exists, the matter and antimatter would be very close to each other in the container, as the virtual particles are created and then annihilated in a fraction of a second. They would not occupy two separate, distinct areas, much less two supposedly different levels of spacetime.

For C2, I've answered the first two (the first is the combination of the breakdown of physical laws at T=0 and the BBT itself (which doesn't consider T=0 anyway) does not break physical laws). Question three is not a valid objection either. There are places in the universe of greater density than others due to the local effects of gravity. This leaves places like galaxies, and other places like matter voids. There is no refutation of the BBT here.

For C3, these questions are just rehashes of previous ones. Even if there was a previous universe, it would have no effect on the current one. "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang... By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."[6]

Points on Con's Conclusion and Video

I'm sure my opponent will talk about my use of observational evidence in this round, and I'll leave my discussion on that to the next round. However, I would like to address the video " my opponent making a video is bypassing the character limit. I formally request my opponent not post such video, and if he does, I formally request the voters not consider arguments made in it (not because I can't refute them, but because I wouldn't have space besides making a video myself).

Sources

[1]: http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2]: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...
[3]: http://math.ucr.edu...
[4]: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu...
[5]: http://plato.stanford.edu...
[6]: http://www.hawking.org.uk...
[7]: http://wwwphy.princeton.edu...
ChosenWolff

Con

I. Correlation without Causation

My opponent was required to bring forward a comphrehensive case for why the BBT is true for his opening arguments. All he did was bring up 4 observations, that don't prove in the slightest that the BBT is true. The BOP is already negated by this alone, as the opposition never proved the universe is expanding do to the big bang. Just that it's expanding. This essentially means he proved nothing whatsoever. In my acceptance round I clarified that 4 theories have no correlation with the BBT.


1. Comsic Microwave observations
2. Near-Far Hubble Telescope projections (V=HoD,)
3. Formation of spacial resources in the universe
4. Radiometric Data

Guess what 4 observations my opponent assumed proved the BBT existed? These, and they don't in the slightest. These 4 observations only prove that the universe is expanding, and as I intend on proving, not in the way the BBT projected.

Things the opposition did in R2
- Showed 4 observations that prove the universe is expanding (I agree that it is)

- Nothing else

Things the opposition failed to do in R2
- Prove that expansion is a result of the BBT


Since he failed to do the above, he failed to make a strong contention regarding the big bangs existence. Which is why I'm going to take a unorthodox route to debunking the oppositions arguments. I'm going to take every observation, and also show how it correlates with several other theories.

Theories Cosmic Microwave Observations, V=HoD, and Spacial Allocations also Support

- Quasi-equililbrium theory (QET)

- Ekpyrotic proposal
- Carron Chen Model
- Shu's Universe

http://mass-spec.lsu.edu...
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu...
http://arxiv.org...
http://phys.org...

My opponent just went down the list of wikipedia, naming observations he didn't understand, and trying to convince us like he knew what he was talking about. Notice that if you read the wikipedia article for the big bang top to bottom, it sounds a hell of a lot like my opponents arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It has been 100% proven that the OP was just a loose paraphrase off of wikipedia. And much of it wasn't understood apparently.


II. How V=HoD contradicts both the BBT and Spacial Allocation of Resources

LMAO when I saw what the opposition wrote here. The Hubble Observations are used to debunk the big bang theory! In the big bang model, the cosmos project themselves forward. In the Hubble Observations, the cosmos recede.





The only reliable evidence that proves the universe is expanding, contradicts the BBT

http://discovermagazine.com...

Questions without answers
- Do you support the Hubble Observations, although they debunk the big bang theory?

- Do you deny the Hubble Observations, although they're the only proven evidence for a expanding universe.

II. Why my rebuttals are so short

Because I agree with all my opponents points. The universe is expanding. The problem? Not ONE of these observations proves that the expansion of the universe was a result of the big bang theory. The opposition has commited a correlation without causation fallacy. Here are a few examples.

Examples of how the opposition commited correlation without causation

- The Hubble observations show the universe is expanding therefore the BBT is true

- Cosmic radiation background shows that there is lowering radiation, therefore the BBT is true.
- Matter elements are spread out across the universe, therefore the BBT is true.

III. The definition of theory and fact

Theory
an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

The reason why the big bang theory is a "theory", and not a fact, is because it only explains the facts we already have. It supports current facts. It isn't supported itself by facts. If something has no facts to support it, then it is impossible to prove its probably true. What did the opposition do in R2? He proved that the BBT explains current facts. He didn't prove that current truisms support the BBT.

Proof
something which shows that something else is true or correct
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

The opposition hasn't shown proof for the BBT, just explanations for things we don't understand. A theory isn't a truth. Which is why the BOP is negated . Not one scientist has provided proof, just circumstantial evidence.

IV. Conclusion

The oppositions opening arguments were weak and unsubstantial. Not the slightest bit of proof was brought forward for the existence of the BBT. Just circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence, always results in correlation without causation. The opposition attempted to prove his case on circumstantial evidence alone. This is frowned upon in debating, and a infamous fallacy.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
http://www.princeton.edu...

If any of you affirm any thing in R2, then you would undoubtebly be setting a standard where fallacies are legitimate on DDO. I am intrested in seeing the opposition deny the claim that anything he said was more than "correlation without causation.
Debate Round No. 3
Subutai

Pro

I would like to thank ChosenWolff for this debate.

I. Correlation Without Causation

Before I go into my opponent's arguments themselves, I'd like to mention two things. One, my opponent can't decide which arguments I use. He can argue against them, but he can not ban their usage. I haven't banned my opponent from using the arguments he has. And two, I have provided a lot more evidence (i.e. showing why such observations suggest the BBT) than my opponent claims I have, as I'll explain more in my argument.

To begin, my opponent has restricted what I have actually argued. In addition to what my opponent listed, I also covered the homogeneity of the universe itself (separate from the CMBR), the apparent evolution of galaxies, the abundance of light elements and the asymptotic decreasing abundance of elements themselves, and the distribution of star populations within galaxies. There's also the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, which my opponent doesn't consider either in his arguments. All of these arguments should be considered dropped.

On top of this my opponent has claimed that I have committed the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy by using observational evidence. Now I will get into the accepted use of observational evidence later on in my argument, but I would like to point out now that I not only showed the observations that the BBT predicts, but how they fit into the BBT model and the BBT model only. In every argument, I showed the correlation, established causation, and showed how only the BBT is the only model that could explain it. For example, take the CMBR: "In the absence of BBT, there would be no reason to expect a uniform, long-wavelength background radiation in the universe." There are other parts of my argument like this that show that only the BBT can explain such observations in my first argument with all of my arguments.[1]

The alternative models my opponent presents aren't refutations of the BBT at all. The Quasi-Equilibrium theory doesn't even deal with the evolution of the universe, but rather with mass spectroscopy. The Ekpyrotic Universe theory doesn't eliminate the BBT " it simply amends how the earliest moments happened, which the BBT doesn't even consider. "The rest of the story is as the Big Bang model would have it, but the beginning is different." The article my opponent presents on the Carroll-Chen Model actually refutes it - "I argue that the Carroll-Chen cosmogenic model does not provide a plausible explanation of our universe's initial low-entropy state" And Shu's Universe Model can't even explain the CMBR - "One of the biggest problems he faces is explaining the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background." Overall, none of these models either replace or are intended to replace the BBT model.[2][3][4]

The arguments for the BBT are pretty much the same. My arguments are similar, but not exactly like Wikipedia's, and I actually drew more inspiration from the TalkOrigins article (source 1 in round 2). Regardless, the arguments for the BBT are rather unanimous.

II. The Expansion of the Universe

My opponent's argument here doesn't make any sense. He doesn't explain what he means with his claim, and he doesn't provide any evidence for his claim. "As you know, most of the galaxies in the Universe are expanding away from us because of the Big Bang..." I'm not sure what the point is here.[5]



This follows the predictions put forth by the BBT. Space is expanding, and the distances between galaxies are increasing as time goes on.[6]

My opponent quotes none of the article, and by rule 3 (All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate), none of the arguments made in them should be considered.

III. Definition of Theory and Fact and the Use of Observational Evidence

The BBT is the standard cosmological model for the evolution of the universe for a reason. Let's look at how the scientific method works:

"1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation."[7]

By this way, the BBT follows how a successful theory should work. My opponent's arguments here are partially correct. No, the BBT is not a fact, but it was never meant to be. However, they leave out how strongly the BBT is supported under the current scientific testing system. I will myself define the theory as, "A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed." It would be quite hard to experiment with cosmological theories, so drawing together observational evidence is the best way to make theories in cosmology. If we look at that definition, I have already shown the BBT to be valid " it has been established by observation, it accounts for known facts, and is the general principle for universal evolution.[8]

What all this means is that my arguments for the BBT are how theories, and cosmological theories especially, are to be considered valid. Theories are never true, and it is possible that the BBT will be replaced as the dominant theory for the evolution of the universe at a later date, but right now, according to all of the evidence, it is the dominant theory, and should thus be considered currently valid.

Further, tests on other cosmological models find the Lambda-CDM model of the BBT to be the best fit among other theories. "These statistics favor models that give a good fit with fewer parameters. Based on this analysis, the preferred cosmological model is the flat cosmological constant model [Lambda-CDM model] where the expansion history of the universe can be adequately described with only one free parameter describing the energy content of the universe [The BBT's cosmological constant]."[9]

Here is a chart showing the change in AIC (Akaike information criterion) and BIC (Bayesian information criterion) that considers various cosmological models:

Flat cosmological constant ............. 194.5/192 43.7 0 0
Flat general Chaplygin ................... 193.9/191 42.7 1 5
Cosmological constant.................... 194.3/191 42.0 2 5
Flat constant w................................ 194.5/191 41.7 2 5
Flat w(a) ......................................... 193.8/190 41.0 3 10
Constant w...................................... 193.9/190 40.8 3 10
General Chaplygin .......................... 193.9/190 40.7 3 10
Cardassian ....................................... 194.1/190 40.4 4 10
DGP................................................. 207.4/191 19.8 15 18
Flat DGP ......................................... 210.1/192 17.6 16 16
Chaplygin........................................ 220.4/191 7.1 28 30
Flat Chaplygin ................................ 301.0/192 0.0 30 30

Notice how the flat cosmological constant is the least change (0 in both AIC and BIC) of any other model, which indicates that the Lambda-CDM model is the most valid model of all cosmological theories for the evolution of the universe. This shows the BBT also has validity in this aspect.[9]

In conclusion, the correlation without causation argument is incorrect. I have shown correlation, causation, and strict causation (in other words, I showed that such observations were only valid under the BBT). Each argument I have presented shows why the BBT makes such predictions, show how such predictions are true, and show how they are only explainable with the BBT. My opponent has not even touched the majority of my arguments (i.e. galactic evolution), and my opponent has provided no model that explains every single observation I put forth in a logically and scientifically valid way. Overall, here, the BBT is affirmed, and I have not committed such fallacy.

Conclusion

Overall, my opponent has put forth a rather poor performance in this debate. He has made wildly invalid and incorrect arguments, misrepresented my own arguments, consistently leaves his arguments unsubstantiated (he only substantiates facts; the claims he makes are completely unsupported), and has never even been close to throwing enough doubt on the resolution to negate it. All he has done is made unsubstantiated, and oftentimes completely false claims without actually arguing against the BBT, and his refutations are very off-point and his drops a number of my arguments. I have made a number of arguments that show that the BBT is the most valid of current cosmological theories for the evolution of the universe with ample sourcing and logical validity. Overall, it is very easy to see that con has not refuted my arguments and that my BoP has been upheld

Sources

[1]: http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2]: http://wwwphy.princeton.edu...
[3]: http://arxiv.org...
[4]: http://www.technologyreview.com...
[5]: http://www.universetoday.com...
[6]: http://onlinephys.com...
[7]: http://science.kennesaw.edu...
[8]: http://physics.ucr.edu...
[9]: http://iopscience.iop.org...
ChosenWolff

Con

The Surrender

Chosen: Thou Subutai, please accept my surrender
Subutai: Chosen, the Japanese show no mercy
Chosen: But SUBUTAI, Russia will serve you faithfully
Subutai: Thou shall face blades end
*sepoku*










Debate Round No. 4
222 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
It is this natural balancing of the forces in the universe that produces the so called Universal Constants that allow life to form. So the Fine Tuning Argument is nonsense as it is simply how the universe balances itself out.

Though in Victor Stenger's view, Life adapted itself to the natural forces of the Universe, so regardless of how finely tuned the Universe appears, life would find a way to exist, regardless of tuning problems.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
In Biblical terms, Energy begets matter and matter begets Energy.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
So true Ajabi, things we perceive as solid are mostly empty space, and energy/matter are intertwined. Energy becomes matter and matter, energy.
The universe may have a tiny insignificant spec, but the energy was approaching such a large value that it could be considered by us as close to an infinitely large value, it is this energy that is expanding the universe. where a lot of the energy is now presenting itself in the form of Dark Energy and this dark energy appears to be increasing the acceleration of the expansion.
The universe is nonetheless balanced according to some calculations.
Sum of the Energies, matter and anti-matter, gravity, etc.. in the Universe is zero.
Posted by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
I hate hate hate it when people think the Big Bang was an explosion, it was simply rapid expansion, the entire cosmos was fit in the dot of an 'i' and then it started rapidly expanding.
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
"Imagine the surface of a balloon as it is being blown up, with a few ants on it at various locations.They don't need to find an external reference frame to figure out that the space between them is expanding."

It's incorrect to think of the universe as some shape growing larger and larger. Space-time is externally undefined and therefore has no absolute boundaries that would make it a shape. Logically, it must be defined as intrinsic curvature.
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
I'm sorry, is my truth annoying you?
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
Same
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
Lol, now shoo
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
Commenting to tick the check box to disable emails. Pay no attention.
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
Unless Subutai can explain how something that is externally undefined in size can increase in size, his position is a priori absurd.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
SubutaiChosenWolff
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: con consession
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
SubutaiChosenWolff
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: COn conceded and so its pretty easy decision to chooses a winner. Regarding Pros arguments, I thought they were well presented and even though Con is right that we cannot be 100% certain that BBT is correct the proposition was probably true. Pro made arguments to support the proposition while Con bashed the arguments and made no counter arguments to even get close to a win except stat we can know for certain. Also I found Cons attack that the ideas were copy and paste unfounded as a theory can only be written in so many ways as Pro pointed out.
Vote Placed by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
SubutaiChosenWolff
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Apart from CON's concession in the last round; PRO was able to show the plausibility of the Big Bang with a wider view on sources, physics and logic. I am particularly fond of many debates and debaters who use diagrams for their argumentation. So this is a point I would award to both. If I could.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
SubutaiChosenWolff
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: The Big Bang has little to do with Heat Combustion as Pro explained, Con took an obstinate view and considers not knowing as some kind of Fallacy, when nobody can possibly claim to know anything about what actually happened. Pro successfully demonstrated BOP as probably is not the same as Claiming the BBT is definitely true.